Subject: [Txauth] Call for WG name preferences - process clarification

From: Fabien Imbault <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2020 13:57:20 +0200

Dear all,

A quick personal feedback on the "TxAuth - Transmission of Authority",
following Dick's comment.

I previously agreed that transaction may be incorrectly understood in an IT
context, due to its widespread use in database engineering.

I however disagree with the interpretation that "transmission" would mean
that the AS would be passing the authority to issue tokens to the
client, except maybe if the token itself allows for delegation (but that's
a really uncommon case, since JWT doesn't allow that, so I don't think
people would even think of it).
Since I'm not the creator of the acronym, I believe it simply means you're
passing to the client the authority borne by the token, so that the client
can make a call on behalf of the user. I don't see where there could be
ambiguity and it does fit pretty well with the scope of work.

One drawback is whether users would actually remember tx means transmission
(instead of transaction), which seems perhaps a bit far stretched and
results from our previous internal discussions.

As far as I'm concerned, I still think it's one of the best available
proposition (alongside GATAR which came after my "would object"/"wouldn't
object" comments).

What are the next steps after today's deadline ?

Fabien

---

From: Dick Hardt <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2020 08:48:23 -0700

Hi Fabien

My concern was not with the word "transmission", but with the word
"authority". Per your statement:

" ... except maybe if the token itself allows for delegation (but that's a
really uncommon case, since JWT doesn't allow that, so I don't think people
would even think of it). "

That is the confusion I am concerned about. Someone NOT familiar with what
it does may easily think that the "token allows for delegation" is the
purpose of the protocol as authority is commonly used as a reference to the
entity that can issue assertions, not use assertions.

ᐧ

On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 4:57 AM Fabien Imbault <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> I previously agreed that transaction may be incorrectly understood in an
> IT context, due to its widespread use in database engineering.
>
> ambiguity and it does fit pretty well with the scope of work..
>
> One drawback is whether users would actually remember tx means
> transmission (instead of transaction), which seems perhaps a bit far
> stretched and results from our previous internal discussions.
>
> --
> Txauth mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>